
^ '.'g-^-* '0- ^' -"%isii^** «5'*' "^ "^^ 



40^ 





























0* 
















^°^^^ V 







% ^"^ * 
V-^^ » 














4P 

















^< 



[p g E © [[] 



OF 



y 






l"iil ''iiiii'iii'i ■''■..iiiuii' ''liiil '''iiiii 



SlUil '® ''8 m ''C 



SJ 



DELIVERED 



At the Great Union Festival, 



< 



HELD 




AT JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI, 



On the lOtli day of October, 1§51 



REPORTED ESPECIALLY FOR THE NATCHEZ COURIER. 




NOTCHES: 

rrinted at the Book and Job Office of the Natchez Courier. 



.-el's 



I 






iii 'iiiiiii ''liiiii 



F 



\^®ma g. i. [B®¥©o 



JUDGE BOYD remarked: 

Fei-low-Citizens, — We have passed through a 
Bevere contest, and achieved a signal victory. It 
was an American contest, and a constitutional 
victory. In no other land beneath the sun could 
a similar result have been brought about by simi- 
lar means. It is not necessary to search the re- 
cords of ancient history to shew how these strug- 
gles of opinion have hitherto been conducted. — 
This truth is strikingly illustrated by the conflicts 
which have convulsed modern Europe, and are 
still shaking the foundations of society with a 
half-smothered violence. These are but struggles 
of opinion, and yet they have caused seas of 
blood to flow. Witness the sad scenes of sanguin- 
ary strife in glorious Italy, in Germany, Hungary, 
and indeed throughout central Europe ! Behold 
the melancholy spectacle of France, the so-called 
Republican France, marching her armies and 
lending the voice of her caunon to assist Despot- 
ism in crushing the holy aspirations of the Roman 
people for that freedom which was to them a birth- 
right — the brightest inheritance from past ages of 
glory! This is the shame-spot on the civilization 
of the nineteenth century. The newest-born of 
Democracies turning* ler scarcely recovered pow- 
ers with brutal ferocity, against the oldest of Re- 
publics, and crushing with the horrible engines of 
destruction, the kindling sparks of Liberty, re- 
awakening in the ancient temple of Freedom ! 

But the agitation which has affected this country 
throughout its length and breadth, is thus far 
peaceable, and the only true Republic on earth, 
the only government under which genuine liberty 
— liberty regulated by law — is enjoyed, is still 
unstained with the blood shed in domestic strife. 
True, there are Northern fanatics and Southern 



ultras, but their designs are yet unattended by 
success. Many who are acting with these men are 
ignorant of the fact that the agitation which they 
are mutually inflaming, had its origin in British 
designs upon the prosperity of this country, and 
the integrity of the Union. This is the truth, 
however. In 1833, England emancipated her 
slaves in her West India Colonies ; and in 1835 
she commenced by her emissaries the work of abo- 
litionism here. And from that day to the present, 
the war of opinion in reference to the institution 
of slavery has been going on. She has pursued it 
with an eye that never slept,and a hand that never 
wearied in the cause. She has kept constantly be- 
fore her the single object, of controlling by all and 
every means the manufacturing industry of the 
world, and adding that conquest to her boasted 
commercial supremacy over the seas. The atti- 
tude of Mississippi on this subject has been ther 
same throughout. Her position has been to main- 
tain the Constitution unchanged; her cause hag 
been triumphant, and danger from this source — 
imminent danger — has disappoMred forever. 

To understand fully our candition, it is neces- 
sary to bear in mind the nature of the danger we 
apprehended. It was that the Constitution did 
not afford the South a sufficient protection on this 
vital interest ; or rather, that its guarantees in our 
favor would not be respected or enforced ; that the 
legislative powers of the Government might be 
turned from their proper, constitutional channels, 
and perverted to our great injury and perhaps ul- 
timate destruction. Upon these points, Mississip- 
pi spoke in language not to be misunderstood. 
The grounds taken by her in her preliminary Con- 
ventions of May and October 1849, were that she 
never would consent to the exercise of the powers 



(4 



of the General Government to her oppression, or 
in any way to the prejudice of her interest in 
slave property. She would never submit to the 
abolition by Congress of slavery in the District of 
Columbia, nor to the prohibition of the internal 
slave trade between the States. She would not 
tolerate any action which would affect slavery iu 
the different States of the Republic. She asserted 
that she would not submitto any of the anti-slave- 
ry provisos that had been proposed at different 
times in Congress as a portion of the governmental 
law to be given to the territories. Again and 
again she took and reiterated the position, that she 
would not permit any change in the organic law 
on this subject, and would insist to the last, that 
all her rights in this respect under that instrument 
should be secured and respected. By a reference 
to the resolutions passed at those Conventions, 
these facts will appear beyond dispute. This was 
all that was asked. Respect for the organic law 
as it is, and a rigid enforcement of the laws under 
it, 

AVe are then solemnly called on to determine, 
what has been done by the General Government — 
not by mobs or lawless individuals — to violate any 
of these declarations of the rights and wishes of 
the people of Mississippi. To consider this ques- 
tion was the sole object of the Convention to meet 
in November next; to deliberate upon the rela- 
tions between the Federal Government, and the 
government and people of the State of Mississippi. 
That Convention was not called upon to say 
whether the speculative opinions entertained in 
this or that section of the nation were correct ; nor 
whether the views of distinguished statesmen, 
AVebster and Clay, or Cass and Dickinson, were 
orthodox; nor whether the Northern or Southern 
ultras were right or wrong in their reasonings ; but 
to determine the point whether Congress had by 
any of its acts violated the national compact of 
Union. The language of the aet calling the Con- 
vention directs its members "to consider the 
(then) existing relations between the Government 
of the United States and the Govarnment and peo- 
ple of the State of Mississippi, to devise and carry 
into effect the means of redress for the past and ob- 
tain certain security for the future, and to adopt 
such measures for vindicating the sovereignty of 
the State and the protection of its institutions, as 
shall appear to them to be demanded." 

Such, and such alone, is the duty which, by re- 
peated instructions from the people, your Dele- 
gates will be bound to perform in the coming Con- 
vention, and such is, in fact, our duty in thia hour 
of patriotic conference and re-union. 

To understand fully the groundwork of dissatis- 
factioH and complaint, it is absolutely indiapensa- 



ble to examine in detail, the five measures of com- 
promise passed at the last session of Congress, and 
to ascertain their true character when squared by 
the Constitution. Three out of the five were con- 
fessedly Southern measures, and the other two, it 
will be easy to show, involve no violation of the 
Constitution. 

The first one in the list of grievances complain- 
ed of, was the Bill " to suppress the slave trade in 
the District of Columbia." This act prohibited 
the bringing into the District of any slave what- 
ever, "for the purpose of being sold, or for the pur- 
pose of being placed in depot to be subsequently 
transferred to any other State or place, to be sold 
as merchandize." And for any infraction of this 
law "by the owner or by the authority or consent 
of the owner, such slave thereupon became libera- 
ted and free." It is asserted that by this act, Con- 
gress usurped, and actually exercised the power of 
emancipating a slave. This is a great error, and 
one so often committed, that it seems proper to ex- 
amine it minutely. 

In the first place, the Act in question is not an 
act directed to the subject of slavery. Its sole ob- 
ject is the punishment of an offence, and it comes 
under the head of crimes and misdemeanors, and 
not of emancipation, or intermeddling with prop- 
erty. It is penal in its nature, and the penalty 
for a violation of it is the loss of the slave. The 
slave so emancipated or made free, does not obtain 
his freedom by virtue of this legislation of Con- 
gress, but by the act of his master himself. The 
crime of themr.stir is punished by the loss of his 
slave, but the luss thus incurred is not the result 
of the law. By no means : this law might remain 
in force forever, and the relation of master and 
slave in the District be in no way affected by it. 
The loss would be the same to the master, and be 
traceable to the exercise of the same kind of power 
by Congress, if the penalty had been a sale of the 
slave. It would have been only a different meth- 
od of exercising an admitted power. An illustra- 
tion that cannot be misunderstood, is found in the 
passage of all those Acts of Congress within the 
District, which provide for the capital punishment 
of slaves. In all such cases, no one supposes that 
the property is taken from the owner by the law, or 
lost to the master by force of the statute. 

But another view of the matter is quite as satis- 
factory. It may be confldantly asserted that the 
whole operative part of this act is derived from 
Maryland, and not from the United States Govern- 
ment. The District of Columbia was ceded to the 
United States in I'm. By the articles of cession, 
it was stipulated " that the jurisdiction of the laws 
of this State over the persons and property of in- 
dividuals residing within the limits of the cessioa 



aroresaul, shall not cease or terminate until Con- 
gress sliall by law provide for the government 
thereof under their jurisdiction, in manner provi- 
ded by the article in the Constitution before reci- 
ted." 

The eighth Section, Article 1st, of the Constitu- 
tion, authorizes Congress, "to exercise exclusive 
legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such dis- 
trict (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by 
cession of particular States and the acceptance of 
Congress, become the Seat of Government of the 
United States." 

After the cession, and before any legislation on 
the subject, Maryland in 1796 passed a law, "pro- 
hibiting the introduction into that State," by land 
or water, of " any negro, mulatto, or other slave, for 
SALK, OR TO RESIDE within this State; arid any 
person brought into this State as a slave, contrary to 
this act, if a slave before, shall thereiqion cease to 
he the property of the person or persons so import- 
iitij or bringing such slave within the State, and 
shall bejree." 

Inasmuch as the Act of ] 791 did not expressly 
provide for future legislation by Maryland, Con- 
gress expressly adopted the act of 1796 just refer- 
red to, by a law passed in ISOl, during the admin- 
istration of Mr. Jefferson. That enactment pro- 
vided that " the laws of the State of Maryland as 
they now exist, shall be and continue in force in 
that part of the said District which was ceded by 
that State to the United States." It will thus be 
clearly perceived, that there was a law of Mary- 
land in force in the District from 1796 to 1850 — 
the date of the Compromise Acts — by which it was 
unlawful to bring into the District any slave either 
" FOR SALE or TO RESIDE," and that the penalty of 
this act was the freedom of the slave. And the 
Supreme Court of the United States have twice 
given their deliberate sanction to this view of the 
law and its penalty — once in 1S35, and again, as 
late as 1844. 

Now the Act of Congress which we are consider- 
ing, did not alter the law of Maryland as to the 
crime or penalty, except to render it lawful to in- 
troduce slaves into the District, for the use of the 
inhabitants, or to reside there. Congress did but 
re-enact the Maryland law, which was and is in 
force whether re-enacted or not, and repeal the 
prohibition contained in that law against residents 
of the District introducing slaves for their own 
use. That provision pressed severely on them. It 
was repealed by Congress; and this is the only 
part of the act which derives its force and sanction 
from Congress. The rest comes from Maryland. 
If the act of 1850 should be declared void to-mor- 
row, the Maryland law — a much more oppressive 



'one— would still be in force. The former is the 
least obnoxious of the two. It is but an affirma- 
tion of tho old law, leaving out that which was 
most objectionable in it. Congress has not abol- 
ished slavery by the legislation referred to in tho 
District of Columbia; and when at the late session 
a direct attempt M'as made to effect that object, it 
received but five votes, and was, in connection 
with what has been actually done, a virtual ac- 
knowledgment that no power existed in the legis- 
lative department to accomplish that end. 

As to the total absence of such power in Con- 
gress there can be no reasonable doubt. And that 
the consent of Maryland cannot give it is equally 
clear. If it exists at all, it must be by virtue of 
the Constitution alone, for Congress has no powers 
not traceable to that source, and the consent of all 
the inhabitants in the District, cannot add one jot 
to the constitutional functions of Congress. Tho 
right to destroy property in slaves is not a legis- 
lative power. No legislature even of the States, 
can exercise it. It belongs to the people in their 
highest capacity, and unless granted by their Con- 
stitutions, has no existence at all. 

But if this act were as objectionable as it is con- 
tended, what would be the remedy ? Not nullifi- 
cation or secession ! Every injur}' inflicted under 
it, would furnish a case for the action of the judi- 
ciary, to which the judicial power of the Govern- 
ment expressly applies. Nor until that, and an 
effort at repeal, and every other proper and lawful 
means of redress had been exhausted, could Stato 
interposition be appealed to. This is the extreme 
medicine of the Constitution, and ought to be ap- 
plied only where all other remedies fail, and when 
the disease would otherwise prove fatal. He is a 
bad adviser in civil contests, who takes a final posi- 
tion which he cannot maintain. He thus gives a 
double strength to his adversary; and the South- 
ern man who makes a precedent where none exists, 
may possibly be patriotic, but he is certainly not 
very wise. The time may not be distant, when the 
acts of such men may produce more difficulty and 
embarrassment lo the South, than all the covert 
designs and secret machinations of our avowed 
foes. 

We have thus gained one of the chief points 
always contended for by Mississippi, that Congress 
shall not abolish slavery in the District of Co- 
lumbia. 

The next feature in the Compromise, was the Fugitive 
Slave Bill. Is auy person here dissatisfied with it? — 
Would any one vote for its repeal ? Did any deny the 
power of Congress to pass it? These are questions 
to bo put to every Mississippian, and they cover the 
whole controversy on this point. Nothing was said in 
cither of our Conventions in Jlay and October, 1S49, en 



«) 



this sulfject— why I know not— yet it was the turning 
point on which all the agitation had hinged. It was the 
Experimenlum Criicis of the Constitution ! In one essen- 
tial particular, it was of more importance to us than all 
the other measures of compromise put together. It is 
the precise point, in which the non-slaveholding States 
are made to feel and acknowledge the pressure of the 
organic law ; to feel that slavery is their institution as 
well as ours ; a, basis of their constitution as well as ours; 
a thing recognized, guaranteed and protected by that 
highest law — the fundamental law, common to both sec- 
tions of the Union. 

This bill was passed by Southern men for the defence of 
the South. It was for the protection of the South, but 
to be executed by the North. Every letter and line of it 
was prepared by its friends, without hindrance from any 
quarter, and with that single object. Indeed so anxious 
were the Senators from the non-slaTcholding States, to 
leave the whole matter to their Southern colleagues, that 
they allowed it to run through all its stages, even to the ' 
final passage, without even voting on it ; leaving it 
throughout, with those who were most interested in its 
terms and execution. The defects of the act of 1793 were 
all remedied by it, and the'duty of enforcing it, was plac- 
ed in the hands of Federal, and not State officers. Ad- 
mitting it were true that the laws, so framed and passed, 
cannot be executed, the blame does not fall on Congress • 
it cannot be said that the law-making power has failed to 
performits duty,and its whole duty. It may be said that 
the people of the North have been, in some instances, re- 
miss, or even criminal on this subject, but no censure 
will lie on Congress. In regard to all the other acts of 
the Compromise, there might bo some differences of opi- 
nion among us ; but this was the act of acts ; the only 
one of them all by which the people — all the people— of 
the several states, were made to feel the national obliga- 
tions of the Constitution upon them. Wherever that 
law goes, non-intervention ceases ! It requires an active 
and not apas.sive patriotism ! It makes personal action, 
and not inaction, the national duty, of every man, wo- 
man and child in the Republic! Doubtless the law may 
be and has been obstructed. It is not self-executing, and 
cannot be so. No law can execute itself, and every law 
that may be enforced may also be resisted. And this law 
has been resisted even unto blood! But all this has 
found no sanction in the social systems or, organizations 
of the free states. It has proceeded from secret machin- 
tions, treasonable combinations, or lawless mobs : and 
these may exist anywhere, and under any government. 

If the day should ever come, when a solemn and deli- 
berate intention is evinced by the non-slaveholding states 
to deny the obligation of this law, and to render it nuga- 
tory, or to deny us in effect the full benefit of the express 
guarantees of the Constitution in our favor, then I say 
it\ij}ll he time tor us to take counsel together and to con- 
si4cr soberly and uuitedly the proper mode and measure 
of redress. Should such a contingency arise in my 
day, I for one shall not be found wanting in my duty to 
my country. The Constitution that will have ceased to 
protect us, will no longer be worthy of support. 

But no such design has been exhibited by the States, or 
the people. Just enough of outbreak and restlessness 
has been manifested, to arouse them from their apathy, 
and compel them to their duty. And there is no suffici- 
ent reason to doubtof the result. They may be willing, 
when the times arc 'luict and untroubled, to allow our 



fugitive.- to find an asylum in their midst. They tnigh! 
even not object to giving thefii "aid and comfort," in a 
quiet and peaceable manner. But when such a course 
comes to involve them in the harboring a band of out- 
laws and murderers ; when they are called on to resist 
the highest law of the land, and commit treason on their 
behalf, they will no longer remain passive. If 
they cannot relieve themselves from this reproach as 
communities, they will take the short method of driving 
them beyond their borders,' and sweeping them away as 
with the besom of destruction! No state can afford to 
risk the consequences of a contrary course. And the 
result has already begun to show itself. You will see it 
in the recent action of Indiana, in incorporating into heT 
constitution by an overwhelming majority, a prohibition 
against all future emigration of colored persons. The Na- 
tional and State Judiciaries, too, have hitherto been 
faithful. In Michigan, Vermont, Pennsylvania, New 
York and Massachusetts, they have sustained your rights, 
and have set forth and illustrated the obligations of the 
law and the duties connected with it, in a manner that it 
woiild bo difficult for Southern jm-ists to surpass. I have 
heard of but one juilge in the U. States, who has ventur- 
ed the assertion that the law is not constitutional, and 
ought not to be enforced. And this opinion is without 
weight, for it partook of the indiscriminate phren.^iy 
of the inebriate politician, rather than the deliberate! 
wisdom of the Judge. The fugitive slave law is a wise, 
just and constitutional law, and will, I doubt not, be fin- 
ally faithfully executed. Meanwhile, you have all the 
assurance that can be required, that no violation of if 
can occur, without bringing down upon the offenders,tho 
full powers of the I'ederaland State Governments. 

A conspicuous portion of the platform of the South, at 
the opening of this controversy was, that we would not 
permit anti-slavery provisoes to be afiixed to any bills for 
the govei-nlnent of the territories acquired from Mexico, 
Have any such provisoes been attached to those bills ? — 
Was there any thing enacted in either of them, to prevent 
a Southern man going there with his slaves ? None — em- 
phatically, none ! Congress had carefully abstained from 
the exercise of any such power. And this was what we 
insisted on in our Jfay and October Conventions. I 
am aware it has been insisted on high authority, that the 
law of Mexico prohibiting slavery, prevails in the terri- 
tories acquired from her by war and treaty, and that it 
so prevails in virtue of the Law of Nations. I shall un- 
dertake to prove the contrary, and as the point is some- 
what difficult, you will pardon me for asking your special 
attention. 

No one will contend that one nation can make laws 
that shall of themselves, or by their own inherent force, 
be binding on any other nation. No government can 
rightfully u.^urp the legislative functions of another. The 
laws that bind apeople, must proceed from the law-mak- 
ing power which they have established for themselves. 
The principles of the Laws of Natioas contended for, do 
not, when properly understood, conflict with this view. 
They are not the result of direct enactment, but rather 
a Code of conventional rules adopted from time to time, 
to meet the exigencies of society, in those relations that 
are not provided for by direct municipal regulations. — ■ 
They form the rules of action and guidance for nations 
in their intercourse with each other, whether in peace or 
war. Their operation in every particular State, depends 
n-jt absolutely on their intrinsic force, but may always be 



'') 



rcfvrrefl to silent aciiuicaccnco or aJoption. As anciently 
known and rccognizca, tliuy have 8i>runf; up from im- 
memorial time, among nations having regal or despotic 
powers, and of a homogeneous character. I mean by 
this, that their goverumeuts were of such a character, 
that each and all of them might accede to the National 
Code, without violating any principle of their separate 
governments. This indeed flows as a corollary, from 
the fact thj,t their elfect in each particular state is derived 
from adoption. For the adoption of any law, is the creat" 
ing it, as to the people by whom and over whom, it is ad- 
opted. Examining now, thi:; alleged principle iu its ap- 
plication to our country and government, and admit- 
ting its existence within certain limits, you will see why 
it cannot be applied to the prejudice of the Southern 
States, on the question of slavery in conquered; or other- 
wise acquired territory. 
I take these two positions. 

First. The principle of the Law of Nations ou this 
head is based upon, and limited by considerations of hu- 
manity, that apply to the conquered people — and not to 
the conqueror, otherwise than as he identifies himself 
with them. 

And SECOND. That under our government and consti- 
tution, no such principle can be acquiesced in, adopted or 
enacted, because there is no power in any or all of the 
departments of the General Government to create or de- 
stroy slavery anywhere. 

When one nation conquers another in war, a new re- 
lation springs up between them. The political existence 
of the one is destroyed or merged in the other. But the 
force of arms is not directed against the municipal regu- 
lations of any people ; it has no other object than to beat 
down the uplifted arm of the belligerent, and silence or 
overcome his resistance. When this is done, a new state 
of things arises; a new sovereign is acquired by the 
conquered, and a new people by the conqueror. New du- 
ties — of obligation, on the one hand, and protection, on 
the other — immediately commence. Doubtless the con- 
queror may by the exercise of his law-making power, 
wherever that may be lodged, repeal all the old munici- 
pal laws, and establish others in their stead ; but until he 
does so, they remain from necessity, the nature of the case, 
and the claims of hvimanity. It is not to be tolerated 
that a civilized and organized community, forced to yield 
to a superior military force, should be deprived of all 
rules of ordinary government, for the guidance of its 
people in the variovis relations of society, and be thrown 
back to a state of barbarism. Hence those and such like 
rules remain in force until repealed. But their only object 
is to save the conquered race from anarchy. It is for their 
benefit, and not for the benefit or to the prejudice of the 
conqueror. Should any of the subjects of the conquering 
power go into such territory, doubtless their oonduct in 
what was to be done or transacted by themselves, or 
in reference to any relations of contract or obligation 
there created, would be subject to the same regulations 
as the resident or native citizen ; because there would be 
no other law there, under which any rights could be ac- 
quired. This is the extent, and shows the limit of the 
principle. It excludes all idea of the political power re- 
maining after the conquest ; it confines the operation of 
it to the territory. Thus understood, this principle can 
have no application to slavery, or any other relation ac- 
tually and lawfully eiistjug under the ]aw>i cf the con- 



queror, and wholly independent for its creation upon 
the foriegn law. 

An illustration will suffice for this part of the 
argument. Supposing slavery to be forbidden in 
Mexico by the Mexican law. Then it would be 
impossible for a Mexican or an American, since 
the conquest of those territories to go there, and 
establish or create that relation described in our 
Constitution as " the relation of service or labor 
under the laws of a State." Not because such a 
relation cannot c.xistthere, but because there is no 
method of creating it by any law there in force. 
The same may be said of every other contract or 
relation of society, concerning which their laws 
difTor from ours, or else make no provisions what- 
ever upon the subject. Marriage, legitimacy, bond- 
service and every species of contract, come under 
the same principle. A different case is, however, 
presented, when it is contended that these foreign 
laws act back on the conqueror, and destroy rights, 
relations and contracts lawfully subsisting among 
his people. If, without seeking to establish the-se 
relations under the territory or its laws, a s\lbj«ct 
of the conqueror goes there to enjoy his pre-ex- 
isting rights — rights existing under his own 
laws — no rule of law or reason can, or will allow 
such rights to be annulled, such relations to be 
destroyed, or such contracts avoided. A citizen of 
America may go to the territories acquired from 
Mexico, with his wife and children, his servants, 
whether bound for a term of years by contract, or 
held for life to service and labor under the laws of 
a State, without fear that he will be divorced, bis 
offspring bastardized, and his relation of master 
destroyed by any fancied rule of national law. 
I will pursue this part of the subjectno further. 

My second position is, that there is no power in 
the Government to adopt or assert such a princi- 
ple of the Law of Nations, if it exists elsewhere. 
Ours is a Constitutional Government, and no mu- 
nicipal law can be binding on our citizens any- 
where, unless it can be traced in some way to the 
Legislative power. There is no legislative power 
in the General Government, but what is granted 
by the Constitution ,• and that — all of it — is "ves- 
ted in a Congress of the United States, which shall 
consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." 
Treaties are a part of our Supreme Law, but they 
are chiefly operative by furnishing rules of na- 
tional intercourse, and are not designed to pre- 
scribe municipal regulations for the government of 
the citizen : at all events, they cannot be employ- 
ed to create rules of action which are forbidden to 
the legislative power, or are not within its scope. 
They may therefore be thrown out of the view in 
this enquiry, since there is no pretence that our 
treaty with Mexico eittier could or did abolish 



(S) 



slavery in the territory. The American negotia- 
tor refused even to listen to such a proposal. 

Looking then to the legislative power under our 
Constitution, and that alone, it maybe confidently 
asserted that such a right, as that claimed to pro- 
hibit slavery in those territories does not exist ; 
and if this is admitted, then the legislative power 
cannot adopt a law existing there which does pro- 
hibit it, for that would be in substance and effect, 
the enactment of a prohibition. This must be so, 
unless the local law has effect there, in and of itself, 
which has been already disproved. Could our 
own people have passed such laws there, had they 
found the territory vacant? No one contends for 
this, until they are in the act of forming a Consti- 
tution, and then they can act as they please on the 
whole subject. How then can the vanquished 
Mexican pass laws against his conqueror, which 
our own citizens could not do ? 

It is not denied that other Governments differ- 
ently constituted, might be bound by a different 
rule. But ours is limited by the Constitution, and 
cannot directly or indirectly exceed the grants of 
power there given. There are, and must be there- 
fore,many principles of the Laws of Nations, which 
liave not, and cannot be made to have anj' bearing 
upon us as a nation. This very point has been 
clearly stated by Chief Justice Taney, in reference 
to the duties levied by our army at Tampico, while 
that port was in possession of our troops. He de- 
clared that conquest, under the laws of nations, 
made the subjugated territory a part of the prop- 
erty of the conqueror. But that under our Con- 
stitution, neither the Army nor the Executive could 
add to the boundaries of the Union, by subjecting 
neighboring provinces to our swayj but that the 
treaty-making power alone extended to such a 
case. 

Gen. "Washington gave a similar intimation in 
1794, when urged by Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Ran- 
dolph, to give certain positive assurances and guar- 
antees as President, to Great Britain, concerning 
indemnity to be allowed by our government under 
Jay's Treaty, for British vessels taken by French 
privateers, contrary to established rules. He con- 
sidered that anything beyond a mere expression of 
opinion, would be an interference with the proper 
prerogatives of the Legislative department, and 
declined to comply with their request. Ho said: 

"Although the usage of Nations may be oppo- 
sed to this practice, the difference may result from 
the difference between their Constitutions and ours, 
and from the prerogatives of their Executives. 
The powers of the Executive of this country are 
more definite and better understood, perhaps, than 
those of any other country; and my desire has 
been and will be, neither to stretch nor relax them, 
in any instaneo whatever, uulcss compelled to it by 



imperious circumstances.'' — Vol. 10, Spark's Life, 
&c., pp. 419—422. 

In fact the whole idea in reference to this point, 
so prejudicial to us, has derived its force from the 
recognition of Governments, whose Executive pos- 
sessed a portion of legislative power. It couies 
from the civil law writers, who define Law to be 
that which the King or Prince wills — " Qntcquid 
placuit rerji, hahuit vifjorem legia" — and Liberty 
the right to do that, which is not forbidden by law 
or the will of the Prince. Thus in 1774, Lord 
Mansfield declared : 

"No question was ever started before that the 
King had a right to a legislative authority, over a 
conquered country; it was never denied in West- 
minster Hall ; it never was questioned in Parlia- 
ment." 

So Lord Coke in the time of James the First as- 
serted : 

" If a King come to a Kingdom, by conquest he 
may, at his pleasure, change and alter the laws of 
that Kingdom, but until he doth make an altera- 
tion of those laws, the ancient laws of the King- 
dom remain." 

And again Lord Mansfield used the following 
language, which has been ever since adopted, to 
state the proposition : — " The laws of a conquered 
country continue in force, until they are altered 
by the conqueror." — They were adopted or silently 
acquiesced in hy the Icfjislative x>ower of the King, 
and that rendered them subject to the important 
corollary stated by Lord Mansfield in his Sixth 
Proposition : 

" If the King, and when I say the King, I al- 
ways mean the King, without the concurrence of 
Parliament, has the power to alter the old and in- 
troduce new laws, in a conquered country, the 
legislative 2yower being subordinate to his own au- 
thority in Parliament, he cannot make any new 
change contrary to fundamental princi^iles. He 
cannot exempt an inhabitant from that particular 
dominion, as for instance, from the laics of trade, 
from the potoer of Parliament, or give him privi- 
leges exclusive of his other subjects, and so in many 
other instances." 

You will thus see that these limitations on the 
Laws of Nations, so clearly set forth by the most 
learned Judge of his day, are sufficient to prevent 
the application of them to the question of slavery 
in the territories. Because it would be indirectly 
legislating out of existence a "fundamental prin- 
ciple " of our Constitution, and destroying by the 
law-making power one of its bases. By keeping 
in mind, that there is no legislative power in our 
Government but what belongs to Congress, the 
application of these principles and reasonings will 
be readily made. You will especially observe how 
idle a thing it is, to require Congress to repeal the 
alleged Mexican laws, which never could have had 
any existence against us. 

The erroneous views entertained on this subject have 
been snore injurious to the South, than any direct doc- 



(0 



triuc of Abolitiouisiu. It was owiuj; to tbeir existeuce 
that the Cliiyton Coirniromisc bill was lost, at a moment 
when the whole difficulty could and would have been 
settled satisfactorily to us all. To the same cause we 
trace two other of the most j-crnlcicus opinions, ■with 
■which we have had to contend, and the existence of 
which is still felt. I speak, first, of the idea that posi- 
tive legislation was necessary to authorise the introduc- 
tion of slaves into the Mexican territories ; and second, of 
the mischievous hoi-esy of Non-intervention, as under- 
stood in the non slaveholdiug States. This doctrine has 
placed our chief pecuniary interest beyond the pale of the 
Constitution ; has isolated us from the protection of law, 
and given countenance to the prevalent idea, that the citi- 
zen of the North has no duty under the law enacted for 
oiir benefit but a passive one, when our safety requires a 
constant, bold and active one on his part, by which 
alone the integrity of the Ilopublic can be main- 
tained. 
Thanks bo to Ood, that the scales are falling from the 
• eyes of those blind loaders of the blind, who have incul- 
cated these notions, and our rights are again placed 
under the poustitution, as they were in the beginning. 

The action of the Nashville Convention on this subject 
•was decisive and important, and as it seems to be misun- 
derstood in this and oth(^r particulars, I crave your at- 
tention to an examination of it, somewhat in detail. You 
arc aware that I was associated with the three Judges of 
the High Court of Errors and Appeals, to represent the 
State at large in that assembly. The honor was confer- 
red without solicitation on my part, and my election was 
the first notice I had of the intention of the legislature. 
So far as concerned me, no pledges were asked or required. 
Having no political aspirations, and wholly regardless 
of that popularity which is, however remotely, connected 
with office or place, and being deeply interested in the re. 
suit of the questions then agitating the public, and with 
the conviction that the integrity of the Republic was in 
imminent jeopardy from ultraism in both its sections, I 
entered this Council of Southernmen, with afull determin- 
ation to use my humble abilities with fidelity to the State, 
to allay all unnecessary heat and excitement, to obtain a 
united, firm and just exposition of our rights under the 
Constitution, and to insist on their remaining untouched 
by the action of the General Government. I confess I 
had fears— many fears— that rash counsels might prevail, 
or that there might be a siiccessful eftort to commit us to 
extreme opinions. Every thing looked threatening, and 
it appeared to me the only chance of safety lay in a 
firm adherence to the Constitution. 

I never hesitated to meet Southern men in council, and 
thought if we could not agree among ourselves, it would 
be hopeless to expect others to unite with us. There had 
been Conventions in other parts of the country in refer- 
ence to other great interests — the iron-mongers, the wool- 
growers, the manufacturers and the abolitionists, had all 
endeavored to push forward their peculiar views by that 
sort of concert ensured by meetings and conventions. It 
is the American way of obtaining objects of general mo- 
ment, and the interests of the slave States were impor- 
tant enough, and in peril enough, to warrant a resort to 
■ it. I had no hesitation on the subject, and cheerfully con- 
sented to act as a delegate. 

The first thing done after the organization, was to ap- 
point a Committee on resolutions and propositions, con- 
siating of two members ixom each State, (except Tesas, 



which had but one delegate,) to whom w«r to be referred 
every resolution and proposition which might be the sub- 
ject of debate. This arrangement, it is evident, lodged 
the wliolo power of the Convention in the Committee, 
and here it remained necessarily until it reported. Ifav- 
ing been on that Committee, it is proper I should spc:ik 
ofits action, on certain points of great interest. A series 
of resolutions was referred to the Committee, as soon as 
it was organized. They had been offered by a gentleman 
from Alabama, and are chiefly what Were finally pass- 
ed, and constitute the first thirteen of tho published Kc- 
solutions of the Convention. I am unable to say i?hO 
was their author, but my belief is that they were prepar- 
ed by Mr. Rhett, who was not a member of the Commit- 
tee, bul who was the author of the Address subsequently 
adopted. I judge so from their similarity in expression, 
and from a statement in the original Address, which was 
stricken out in its pi'ogress. It is as follows : " In the 
resolutions loa have adopted, and submit to your approba- 
tion, you will perceive that we recommend you to assent 
to the admission of California as a State, on certain condi- 
tions." 
It is important to notice that the series of resol vcs as pass- 
ed, relates almost wholly to the territorial questions, and 
as soon as they wore passed, the same gentleman who had 
oflcred them, notified the Committee that an Address had 
been prepared, which he doubted not would meet with 
their sanction, and requested the chairman to specify a 
time for calling them together to take action upon it. — 
Some objection was made, as another Committee had been 
appointed to frame an Address. The Committee was 
however called together, the Address read, and pushed 
forward to its final passage, with great zeal. Without- 
particularizing or stating the grounds of my belief, which 
have since been much strengthened, I came to the con 
elusion; First — That that there was a design to keep 
open the agitation on the subject of slavery, particularly 
in the territories, and 

Secondly, to commit the Convention to an ultimatum 
of some kind on this subject; to cause them to take a 
final step leading ultimately to separate State action or 
Secession ; or as it was sometimes phrased, to " equality 
• in the Union or Independence out of it!" 

To prevent either of these results became from 
that time my sole purpose. My first attempt was 
to amend the address so as to conform to the thir- 
teen resolutions already agreed upon, and then it 
was my intention, if successful, to add a series of 
resolutions filling up tho gap left by the Com- 
mittee, and covering the whole ground of 
slavery under the Constitution. For two days I 
labored alone and faithfully to secure the passage 
of such amendments, bvit without success. Al- 
though it was evident that tho address, as it stood, 
could not be adopted by the Convention save by a 
bare majority of States, and a minority of mem- 
bers, still its friends were so wedded to it that all 
efibrt at change became hopeless. And yet this 
address, intended to speak for nine Southern 
States, contained such expressions as these ! — 

"You have waited until the Constitution of the 

United States hiis heen virtvalhj abolished, or what 

j is worbe, is onl^ what the mnjcrity in Ccncfress tMnk 

2 



( 10 



•pro2'>er lomaJceit. That great princiiple on which 
our system of free government rests, — of so divid- 
ing the powers of government, that to a common 
government only those powers should be gmnted, 
•which must afl'ect all the people composing it 
equally in their operation, whilst all powers over 
all interests, local or sectional, should be reserved 
to local and sectional governments, — is uprooted 
from their Constitutions." 

" The power to emancipate the slaves in the 
District of Columbia is i\i.us claimed and exercised by 
Congress." 

"Fugitive slaves are put," by the Constitution, 
"on the footing of fugitive criminals, and are to 
be delivered up hy the State authorities." 

"Although the Constitution requires that fugitive 
slaves, like fugitives from justice, should be ren- 
dered vp bi/ the Stales to which they may have 
fled," &c. Ac. 

"This (slavery) alone sets apart the Southern 
States as a peculiar people, with whom indepen- 
dence as to their external policy is the condition 
of their existence; they must rule themselves or 
perish." 

"But if our view of its provisions is correct, 
instead of ' a compromise,' it is a comprehensive 
system of emancipation .'" 

Besides these extraordinarj^ and unjust expres- 
sions of opinion, there is a sin of omission in regard 
to the address, which cannot be too severely repro- 
bated. In undertaking to explain the compromise 
bill as it relates to Utah and New Mexico, not one 
■jvord is said about the Wilmot proviso being omit- 
ted from its provisions. Such a thing appears 
wholly irreconcileable with any just notion of can- 
dor and fair dealing. 

Having failed in obtaining any amendments to 
the address, I again endeavored to do the next 
best thing, by drafting a series of resolutions hav- 
ing the effect of preventing any injurious inferen- 
ces from it, and at the same time of setting forth 
our whole claim of right under the Constitution. 
Here allow me to introduce and read the 19th, 
20th, 21st, 22d, 23d, 24th, 25th and 27th resolu- 
tions of the Convention, as follows : 

19. Iicsnlved, That the whole legislative power of the 
United Stat«s (iovernment is derived from the Constitu- 
tion and delegated to Congress, and cannot be increased 
or diminished but by an amendment of the Constitution. 

20. Jicsoltu'.d, That the acquisition of territory by the 
"United States, whether occupied or vacant, either by 
purchase, conquest or treaty, adds nothing to the legisla- 
tive power of Congress, as granted and limited in the 
Constitution. 

21. Resolved, That the adoption of a foreign law exist- 
ing at the time, in territory purchased, ceded, or granted, 
is the exercise of legislative power, and cannot be done 
unless the law is of such a character as might rightfully 
be enacted by Congress under the Constitution, without 
reference to its pre-existence as aforeign law. 

22. Jiesulved, That the alleged principle of the law of 
Nations, recognizing, to some extent, the perpetuation of 
foreign laws in existence within a territory at the time of 
its acquisition by purchase, oon(iuest. or treaty, cannot 
under our Constitution and form of government, goto 
the extent of continuing in force, in such territory, any 
law that could not be directly enacted by Congress, by 
virtue of the powers of legislation delegated to "it by the 
Constitution. 

23. Resolved, That no power of doing any act or thing 
ll*y any of the Departments of our tJoverument, can be 
based upon the principles of any foreign law, or of thu 



laws of nations, beyond whatexi tsin such Department 
under the Constitution of the United States, -without ref 
erence to svieh foreign law or the laws of Nations. 

2-1. Resolved, That .slavery exists in the United States 
independent of the Constitution. That it is recognized 
by the Constitution in a threetold aspect, first as proper- 
ty, second as a domestic relation of .service or labor under 
the law of a State, and lastly as a basis of political pow- 
er. And viewed in any or all of these lights, Congress 
has no power under the Constitution, to create or destroy 
it anywhere; nor can such power be derived from foreign 
law.s, conqui st, cession, treatj', or the laws of nations, 
nor from any other source but an amendment of the Con- 
stitution itself. 

25. Resolved, That the Constitution confers no power 
upon Congress: to regulate or prohibit the sale and trans- 
fer of slaves between the States. 

27. Resolved, That is the duty of Congress to provide ef- 
fectual means of executing the 2d section of the 4th ar- 
ticle of the Constitution, relating to the restoration of 
fugitives from service or labor. 

These, as you will see, forever put to rest the 
two preposterous ideas shadowed forth in the Ad- 
dress. First, that the Mexican laws prohibiting 
slavery were still in force in the territories, and 
must be repealed by an express act ; and Secondly, 
that Congress has any power to establish or abol- 
ish slavery, either below or above 36° 30', N. L. 
I found at first a serious opposition to these reso- 
lutions from several gentlemen, whose subsequent 
course as secessionists explains their motives of 
action. I cannot doubt that this opposition was 
owing solely to the fact, that they destroyed all 
pretence for agitation or complaint in regard to the 
recognition of slavery by Congress below 30° 30', 
as well as to any alledged force in the ancient laws 
of Mexico. 

My propositions were accordingly declared a 
string of truisms, and they asserted that we did 
not meet to enunciate mere axiomatic truths ! If 
you, fellow-citizens, and the people of the South 
shall concur in this view, I shall consider it the 
highest compliment of my life. For it will be as- 
serting that my efforts were successful in placing 
the rights of the South under the Constitution, m 
reference to the whole subject of slavery every- 
where, upon grounds so simple that they admit of 
no dispute ! 

These resolutions, with those already spoken of, 
and some others relating to Texas, constitute the 
whole action of the Convention ; and by them, and 
them alone, should it be judged, and not by the 
address promulgated. I am satisfied to be judged 
of now and hereafter, in respect to my fidelity to 
the South and the Union, by the spirit and sense of 
the resolutions above quoted. But the address, 
no earthly power could or can induce me to sign or 
approve. I resisted it in every stage of its pro- 
gress, and now hope it is placed in a position where 
it will be powerless of mischief! 

Before proceeding to show that the Address was 
not concurred in by the Convention, I desire to 
refer briefly to the 11th Resolution. 

This resolution was not intended as a proposi- 



11 



tion of the line of 3G" 30' as an Hltiniatani, or as 
a measure desired by the Convention in any event. 
It was merely an indication of a willingness to 
acquiesce in that line being run, not as an exten- 
sion of the Missouri compromise, but merely as a 
dividing line of property ; the one party to take 
what was above, and the other what was below, as 
his own separate propert}', without any legislation 
by Congress on either side as to slavery. It was 
therefore neither a proposition, nor the Missouri 
compromise, nor intended as an ultimatum. The 
first part of it shows that it was not even a thing 
to be acquiesced in, unless "in the event that a 
dominant majority shall refuse to recognize the 
great constitutional rights we assert, and shall con- 
tinue to deny the obligations of the Federal Gov- 
ernment to maintain them." The phrase, "AS an 
KXTREME CONCESSION," was inserted at the request 
of a gentleman from South Carolina, after the 
Committee had discussed and abandoned the word 
" ultimatum," and was intended to indicate that we 
considered we had a full right above as well as 
below °36 80', and the concession was, in being 
willing to divide the property and take half in ab- 
solute ownership, instead of an undivided interest 
in the whole, liable to be interfered with by anti- 
slavery restrictions. And in that direction, and 
with that view, it was as far as we were,willing to 
go. We would accede to it, but would not propose 
it; nor could we do so consistently with the prin- 
ciples avowed in the resolutions already referred to. 
The action of Congress upon this subject has 
prevented the contingency suggested from arising, 
as they have not refused "to recognize the great 
constitutional rights we assert, nor continued to 
deny the obligations of the Federal Government 
to maintain them." On the contrary. Congress 
has abandoned the right to pass the Wilmot pro- 
viso, to abolish slavery in the District, to prevent 
the transportations of slaves from State to State 
for sale ; has reversed the principle of the Missouri 
compromise greatly to our advantage in regard to 
New Mexico and Utah, the whole of the last and 
much of the first being above 36.30, and now open 
to slavery ; and has given us a law fully to exe- 
cute the constitutional provisions for the delivery 
up of our fugitives from labor and service. This 
is the result of the action of the last Congress, if 
you are satisfied to regard it as " a settlement, a 
Jiual settlemsnt, in principle and substance, of the 
exciting subjects embraced in the compromise mea- 
sures !" 

The twenty-fourth of this series of resolutions, 
analyzes the constitutional features of slavery as it 
exists in the States. It places it on three grounds, 
— a fourth, that of a personal relation, being in- 
cluded in the second. They are as follows : 



First, us property. In this aspect no one can 
rightfully maintain that Congress can create or 
destroy it. 

Second, as a piersnnal and domestic relation " of 
service or labor under the laws of a State." Thig, 
to us the most important, least objectionable and 
strongest view, has not been sufficiently noticed. 
The maddest fanatic on earth would hardly claim 
any authority in Congress to regulate the domestic 
relations existing under the laws of the separate 
States, or to take any action in reference to them 
that would tend, however remotely, to afi'ect them 
within the limits of the Union. The Government 
was formed for no such purpose ; the necessity for 
it grew out of no such interests or concerns. It 
was established solely to act upon affairs of a gen- 
eral nature, affecting all the people alike, such as 
commerce, navigation, war,peace and revenue. The 
grades and divisions of the social relations were not 
in jeopardy, either under the colonial rule or the Ar- 
ticles of Confederation. It was not with a view to 
touch them in any way or any where, that " tho 
more perfect union" of the Constitution was re- 
quired or formed. The enormity and injustice of 
the attempt to wrest the powers of the government 
in a different direction, cannot be more effectually 
shown than by this consideration. AVe have too 
often been led off, and wasted our strength in con- 
sidering other phases of slavery; but this is its 
strongest defence, and most interesting character. 
We are unjust to oursevles when we forget it. The 
n 3arer we bring it to what it really is, a part of our 
social arrangement, and domestic, household life j 
the more favorably before the world do we place it, 
and the stronger under the Constitution. Could 
we relieve it entirely from any other condition, and 
cause it to be looked on no longer as a mere means 
of safe or profitable investment, we should do more 
for the safety and prosperity of the South, than by 
any achievement made since the Declaration of 
Independence. Our enemies would be disarmed, 
and our section of the Union be covered by an 
abounding prosperity we have never dreamed of, 
in the release of large amounts from a precarious 
and over-crowded staple production, to be employ- 
ed in increasing a thousand-fold the spread of the 
mechanic and manufacturing arts among us, ac- 
companied with all that diversity of persuit, which 
constitutes the source of the greatest prosperity, 
wealth and happiness of States and nations. 

Thirdly, as a basis of 2}olitical piower under the 
Constitution. It needs no argument to show that 
Congress cannot change the source from which all 
its powers flow, nor displace one stone from the 
foundations of the Republic. Congress is the 
creature, and the Constitution the creator; and 
the former cannot succeed in any war upon the 
latter. 



( 12) 



These arc the sentiments of the Nashville Con- 
vention as unanimously expressed in the 24th Res- 
olution, ami I trust they are satisfactory to you, 
and will be so to the country. 

The "Texas Boundary Bill'' was incorporated 
•with the New Mexican territorial bill, and they 
became a law in their united condition. The State 
of Mississipppi in neither of its conventions, had 
expressed any opinion on this measure. [Judge 
Boyd here read that portion of the Nashville reso- 
lutions upon this subject, and briefly commented 
on their meaning. The 18th of them contained an 
important admission, applying equally to the whole 
subject. The language used was that the right of 
the people of Texas "is clear and unqxiestionable, 
and cannot be strewjthened hy any mere legislative 
construction or guarantee." This, he said, was a 
clear constitutional principle. These legislative 
acknowledgments are of no importance to our 
rights, and may be prejudicial by encouraging the 
idea that they are really within the reach and con- 
trol of legislation. He then proceeded to examine 
the Boundary Bill as follows:] 

The purchase from Texas of her claim was certainly 
very far from being a denial of her rights. And, consid- 
ering the amount paid, the acknowledgment of those 
lights would appear sufficient to satisfy the most fastid- 
ious. She was not forced to abandon it, but sold it volun- 
tarily for what she considered a fair equivalent. The 
bill leaves the right of the people of Texas to form at 
the proper time, with the consent of that State, four new 
slave States out of its territory, clear and unquestiona- 
ble, neither strengthened nor weakened " by any mere 
legislative construction or guarantee" — a right that is 
as fully acknowleged by leading statesmen at the North as 
at the South. 

The assertion so often made, that a portion of Texas 
slave territory has been surrendered to free-soilism, is 
wholly untrue. I humbly hope I have already proved 
that the right to slavery exists in New Mexico under the 
territorial government, and is not in the least degree af- 
fected by any ot the ancient laws of Mexico. It is un- 
necessary to repeat the argument. It' may be briefly 
said, that until New Mexico shall form a constitution pro- 
hibiting slavery, no part of that territory has been, or can 
be surrendered to free-soil influence. Of her right to do 
that, no southern man dare to make a question. Is it ne- 
cessary to so into any labored defence of the right of Tex- 
as to settle her disputed boundary as she did ? That right 
•was the absolute ant? necessary result of the ownership of 
co-terminous boundaries, and must be so, if she had a right 
toany boundaries at all. The claim ofTexas as against the 
Federal Government, appears to me was well made and 
unanswerable, however it may have been against Mexico. 
But the people of New Mexico and the Federal Govern- 
ment took a different view, and in this condition of af- 
fairs, there were but two ways of adjusting the difference. 
Resort must be made to either negotiation or war. The 
first was wisely adopted, and the result was satisfactory 
to the authorities and people of Texas. He who claims 
to be a State Itights man, and denies the right of Texas 
to accede to this peaccful-settlement, besides the horrible 



alternative which he alone leaves hof, presents the siflg'tJ- 
lar anomaly, of insisting on the perfect right of a State to 
secede with all her territory and to di.sposo of it as she 
pleases, and j'et of denjiug hev just authority to sell a 
part, In adjusting a disputed boundary, and to prevent a 
i-esort to ai-ms! 

After the purchase of Florida from Spain, Alabama 
and Mississipiii from Georgia, and the Mexican Territory 
from Mexico, it seems late in the day to question the con- 
.stitutional adjustment of the boundary of Texas, in con- 
sideration of an equivalent satisfactory to her I Under 
the Constitution of the United States, she had a much 
more extensive power than this ; and quite large enough 
to include it — I mean, the power to assent to forming a 
new State out of her territory. Her most distinguished 
Senator has since declared, that Texas had but a claim to 
this part of her territory, and th.T,t she had greatly 
weakened it, by treating with New Jlexico as having an 
equal claim with her. 

By this settlement the South actually gained a virtual 
repeal of the principle of the Missouri Compromise. Be- 
cause all that part of Texas ceded to the Federal Govern- 
ment above 36 30, was freed from the restriction contain- 
ed in the resolutions of annexation, and left at liberty to 
come into the Union as a free or a slave state according as 
the people willed. And something more tjian this was 
done by it in our favor. For if, as is contended, while a 
part of Texas it was .all slave territory, then by incorporat- 
ing it into and with New Mexico, without any restriction, 
it caused a part at least of the latter to be slave territory; 
and no distinction being made in the territorial bill, as to 
t'le source from which the countrywas acquired, in regard 
to the rights of the inhabitants, the door of New Mexico 
was actually opened to slavery instead of free-soilism ! — 
The Texas Boundary Bill violated no rights of the South, 
but on the contrary was conformable to established 
precedents, and greatly beneficial to all parties concerned 
in it. 

I now proceed to show that the Address of the Nash- 
ville Convention was not approved of by that body. When ■ 
first reported from the Committee, several gentlemen 
were prepared to suggest various alterations. In fact so 
many propositions were made that its friends perceived it 
was in danger of being greatly modified or entirely de- 
feated. At this stage, General Pillow made a few sugges- 
tions so reasonable, that they were at once concurred in 
by the Convention. Their character may be seen by com- 
paring the extracts I have read from the original address, 
with that published in the final proceedings. Having 
produced a temporary calm, and a more conciliatory 
state of feeling among the members, the General pro- 
ceeded to make a master stroke, by which the huge and 
rampant monster was to be deprived of sting and. venom, 
and reduced to the harmless ferocity of "a sucking dove." 
I would you could have seen how gently and soothingly, 
how pleasantly and courteously , how without any ap- 
parent interest or anxiety, 'on t only as if it were a mere 
matter of course, he executed the difficult task. Indeed 
it was done so handsomely, with so little shock to the 
nerves, that I doubt if the surrounding friends were 
conscious of tlie change produced upon their idol ! 

Without heat, but calmly, deliberately. and with an air of 
indifference, as ifhe were only about to correct a mere ver- 
bal error, he handed to the chair the following amendment 
to the last clause of the Address, stating that it would har- 
monize matters much to pass it, and would probably sa- 



13 



t'lsfy the Tennessee Jelosation, wliicb, by tLo way, com- 
prised nearly half of the assembly. Here it is; read it 
and ponder over it : and seo if men ever certified further 
to their own fully, thaa those who concurred in ;uloiitinK 
this Address, and putting it forlli to the world al'lfr it waa 
so amended. 

" It is proper to state to yon, that while we are iinani- 
mous in approving the resolutions accompany in^; this ad- 
dress, the Uelejiates to this Ccmveution ar<; nut nidireli/ 
unanimoHsin appronwj all ihr.niriumnits cantained in U. 
particulnrly such as rkalclo the cnmprimuse bill jiendiiifj 
»»</!<; Uuited States Senate, though none are in favor of 
that bill, unless it be amended in conformity with our 
resolutions, or in surh iwinncr as shall sabstanUalll/ secure 
to the South the riijhl assKrled in them." 

If you- now take out from the address, " all the argu- 
ments contained in it, particularly such as relate to the 
Compromise bill," it will be a little dillicult to tell what 
there is left to quarrel abouti And this was what the 
delegates did not approve of, while the " resolutions ac- 
companying it were nnanimously approved by them !'' 
It is but fair to judge them by what they did, and not by 
what they did not assent to. This will enable you to un- 
derstand the discrepancy between the 11th resolution and 
that part of the Address, which requires a distinct recog- 
nition of slavery below 3G.30. That was inserted in the 
Address, before the clause was stricken out, which pro- 
posed to admit Califoinia as a State, and related to that 
point. But after Pillow's amendment was adopted, no 
one cared to make any further effort to amend the ad- 
dress, considering it fVom beginning to end, of no mo- 
ment whatever. Why should we quarrel about its terms, 
when we had inserted in it a declaration, that we did not 
concur in it ourselves ? I had prepared a minority re- 
port, as a member of the committee, protesting against 
the general idea, running through the whole of that un- 
just dociiment,and insisting that it was unworthy of a Con- 
vention of States to be engaged in deliberating upon any 
bill pending in Congress, or setting it forth, whatever 
might be its character, as a grievance. The absurdity of 
such a course has since been shown, because this Tery 
bill was defeated in the Senate, and thus was knocked 
away the whole foundation of the Address. My friend 
who held my protest, (I left two days before the adjourn- 
ment,) very properly withheld it, doubtless deeming, as I 
did, that it was inhuman to carry the war into the hal- 
lowed precincts of the grave ! The thing was dead, and 
that was, or ought to be,Jthe end of it! 

Fellow citizens, I am not competent to pronounce an 
opinion upon the military capacity of Gen. Pillow, nor do 
I know whether he follows correctly Tauban and Turenne 
in strategy, castrametation, or sapping and ditching and 
the other arrangements of war, but I cheerfully here bear 
testimony to his great skill and consummate address as a 
tactician in State affairs. He is fairly entitled to add the 
civil wreath to the laurels gathered on many fields of 
battle ! 

The last subject of examination is the admission 
of California. No doubt there were irregularities 
in the various steps preceding it; but they were 
irregularities only, when compared with prece- 
dents, and do not rise to the dignity of constitu- 
tional infractions. All of them but one existed in 
reference to Tennessee, Texas, Michigan, Florida 
and Arkansas. In these, or some of them, there 
was no previous census taken under authority of 



Congres.', no act niithori/.lng tlie formntion of ,1 
Constitution, and foreigncr.s were not prohibited 
from voting. The boundaries, too, of Tcxnswcre, 
and are, more extensive than those of California. 

I have said there Avas one difl'ercnco between 
some of these cases, and that of California ; and 
this was, that Californiahad no previous territorial 
government. Let us seo whether tlii.s creates a 
constitutional difficulty. There is no express 
power given in the Constitution to acquire terri- 
tory atall. If it exist, itisasan incident to some 
other power, and lias been referred both to the war 
and treaty-making power. Hence arises the fur- 
ther incident, that if territory can be acquired, it 
must of necessity be governed, at least so far as 
to secure and carry out the expressly granted power 
to dispose of it as property. Now, it is evident, 
that where this necessity does not exist, the inci- 
dental power does not arise and need not be en- 
forced. This was the precise attitude of Califor- 
nia, when she applied for admission. Congress 
had criminally neglected, for two years, to pro- 
vide any government, for the countless thousands 
of emigrants marching to the gold regions, from 
every part of the country. In that situation, ex- 
ercising the privilege that belonged to them as 
American citizens, they met in Convention, formed 
a Constitution, eminently republican in its char- 
acter, and then applied to be admitted as a State. 
The objection, that they bad not passed through 
the process of a territorial government, is wholly 
without foundation. The Constitution made no 
such preliminary step necessary, or proper. 

This question of irregularities, admits of ano- 
ther satisfactory answer. Congress, under the 
Constitution, is the sole judge of the admission of 
States into the Union. She has the sole authority 
to admit, and her action on the subject, under a 
government of constitutional law, is conclusive 
evidence that all pre-requisites have been com- 
plied with. When she assents to the admission, 
the question is forever closed. The principle is 
general, and applicable to all tribunals of exclu- 
sive and final jurisdiction. 

No one doubts, that, if Congress had declared 
in advance, that the people of California might 
meet together, as they did, and form a Constitu- 
tion exactly as they formed it, the proceeding 
would have been forever relieved from the charge 
of irregularity. Is not a ratification by Congress, 
of any act of which it has exclusive control, as 
valid and binding on all the world, as a direct au- 
thorization ? Hear what Mr. Calhoun said, in 1837, 
in reference to Michigan : 

"My opinion was, and still is, that the move- 
ment of the people of Michigan, in forming for 
themselves a State Constitution, without waiting 



for the assent of Congress, was revolutionary, as it 
threw oft' the authority of the United States over 
the territory; and that ire uere left at liberty to 
treat the jiroeeedings as revolutionary, and to re- 
mand her to her territorial condition, or to waive 
the irrei/iilarity, and to recor/nize what teas done as 
riijhl/itlfj/ done, as our aitthoriti/ alone teas con- 
cerned." 

There was anothercircumstance, connected with 
the admission of California. It was quite certain 
that she could not be remanded to a territorial con- 
dition. If anyone thing was settled, it was, that 
she would come in as a State, whether desired by 
the South or not. The outgoing and incoming ad- 
ministrations, had both urgeila final adjustment of 
this exciting subject; and the opinion of all sec- 
tions in Congress, had settled down, that Califor- 
nia should come in. It became then, a question, 
whether this act should bo consummated alone, 
leaving all other diflBeulties connected with the 
subject of slavery unsettled, or that all these sour- 
ces of strife and danger should be closed with it, 
and forever put at rest. What was the proper 
course, and the duty of the patriot, under such cir- 
cumstances, it is unnecessary to point out to an 
intelligent people. 

It is true, her Constitution prohibited slavery ; 
but that was a rightful exercise of power. Mr. 
Calhoun declared in 1847, that "no other condition 
is imposed hy the Federal Constitution on a State. 
in order to he admitted into this Union, except that 
its Constitution shall he republican." California 
came within the rule, and was rightfully admitted. 

It has been urged that this anti-slavery clause de- 
rived its force and effect from the assent of Con- 
gress, and was, therefore, an indirect enactment by 
Congress. This is wholly incorrect. Unless that 
stipulation makes the Constitution anti-republi- 
can. Congress has nothing to do with it. None of 
the provisions therein contained, derive their force 
from the act of admission. They operate solely, 
by the authority of the people of the State. All 
other clauses in that, and every other Constitution, 
are liable to the same objection. There is hardly 
one, in any State Constitution, that Congress can 
enact. The error consists in supposing that Con- 
gress acts on the Constitution, when her sole action 
is on the State in admitting her. It is nearly the 
same case as that of the power of the President in 
approving a law. When so approved, it does not 
derive its power from him, but from Congress, in 
whom the whole legislative power is vested. 

Fellow-citizens : There is one authority, in favor 
of the admission of California, which has never 
been quoted so far as I know, and in the existence 
of which you would hardly believe ! I allude to 
Mr. Rhett. In the first draft of the Nashville 
Address and Resolutions, as I have before shown. 



14) 

a distinct proposition to admit California, as a 
State, was contained, if at the same time Congress 
would declare that slavery should exist below 
36° 30'; thus demanding of Congress to do, that 
which the whole South has a thousand times over 
declared, in every possible form of announce- 
ment, would be unconstitutional ! I do not think, 
that after this, any one should be heard to assert, 
that the admission of California was unconstitu- 
tional ! 

I look upon these measures of compromise as 
"a final settlement" of the whole question of sla- 
very under the Constitution. At this hour, that 
interest stands on better grounds than it has occu- 
pied since the passage of the Missouri compromise, 
because it is put back where it stood when the 
Constitution was formed, and the legislative power 
of the government cannot create or destroy it! 
anywhere. The whole South, and nearly all her 
distinguished champions, were ready to accede to i 
the policy of the Clayton compromise bill in 1848, , 
altho' it legalized, in its first section, the Wilmot 
proviso, for the avowed purpope of asserting the 
naked power of Congress, in a case where it could 
have no practical eifect whatever ! The feature 
that redeemed it in our eyes, was that it provided a 
judicial decision of our rights in the territo- 
ries. The compromise of 1850 contains the same 
provision, and three other most important and ad- 
ditional guarantees in our favor. 

First — That the territories may come in, " with 
or without slavery, as they may choose." 

Second — That no citizen there should be depri- 
ved of his property, any property, but by the 
judgment of his peers. 

Third — That fugitives from service from a State 
or territory, should be surrendered; the only ter- 
ritories to which it could apply, being Utah and 
New Mexico. 

The man who was satisfied with the first and 
not with the last of these compromises, is rather a 
factionist than a statesman or patriot ! 

I have stated that the war of opinion waged i 
against the interests of the slave States, had aa i 
origin further back than the formation of anti 
slavery societies in the North, Abolitionism is 
but one link in the chain forged by Great Britain, , 
to bind these States again in a condition of vir- 
tual colonial vassalage. 

Before the revolution, her policy was to increase 
the productive power other colonies, and to compel I 
them to receive from her, in exchange for their raw ' 
materials, the products of her mechanic and manu 
facturing arts. To such an extent was this design i 
prosecuted, that heavy penalties were imposed by; 
Parliament on many branches of industry, and itt 



15 



was maJo a criminal ofTencc to raanufacturo a hat or 
a hob-nail in her American possessions. With the 
Bame general purpose of monopolizing the trade 
and commerce of her distant subjects, her naviga- 
tion laws were framed, and she encouraged the 
importation of the cheap labor of the Afric^in slave, 
against the petitions and remonstrances of the 
colonists ! 

With the Declaration of Independence this state 
of things was suddenly changed. Thrown on 
their own resources, the colonies began to produce 
for themselves all those articles, which the in- 
dustrial arts yield for the comfort and happiness 
tf man. This tendency was increased by the 
protracted war of the revolution, and at success- 
ive stages, by the non-intercourse acts, and the sec" 
end war of our independence. Our commerce was 
ruined, but our manufacturing interests were final- 
ly established, and they werc'^)Iaced on still surer 
foundations by the ample protection afforded by 
the revenue bills, passed at the close of the war, to 
meet the debt incurred in its prosecution. 

Great Britain was no indilferent spectator of 
this important change. She commenced the very 
year of our Independence — 1776 — by an act in 
Parliament, for the Suppression of the Slave Trade, 
and has continued her efforts i"" that direction, 
till she has incorporated that, as a new crime into 
the law of nations, the practice of which for 
centuries had been a source of profit to her high- 
est nobility, and even royalty itself had not scorn- 
ed to share in its guilty gains. Her boasted town 
of Liverpool, is built up on the bones, and cement- 
ed with the blood of thousands of those unoffend- 
ing Africans, stolen by her citizens from their 
native forests, and butchered with every appliance 
i of cruelty, in the baracoons of the coast, or 
I the fetid holds of her Slave-Ships ! 
' By constant exertions in the same direction, she 
has induced other nations by treaty, to concur in 
' her views, until there are upwards of thirty 
i European and American States, who have declared 
1 the trade piracy. Her last effort in this way, if 
public rumor be true, is a project to join with 
France and Spain, in some arrangement for the 
protection of Cuba, coupled with a stipulation for 
the more effectual suppression of the Slave Trade, 
and the gradual abolition of slavery in the Island. 
AVhether the report is true or false, the fact of its 
extensive circulation shows how generally her 
poliey on this subject is understood. 

In 1823, she took another important step, by 
commencing the work of the gradual abolition of 
slavery in the West India, Colonies, under the 
lead of Mr. Canning. In 1833 the final act was 
passed, and immediately afterwards hor missioa- 



arics appeared in the U. S., and began the work of 
agitation, by starting organized associations to 
promote the abolition of slavery. This was tho 
origin of aggressive abolitionism in tho U.S.; and 
the first emissary sent over had his expense! paid 

by the London Anti-slavery Society, a society 

which was, and is connected in object, design and 
association with tho East India Company. 

This is one object of her policy. Another is 
shown by her regulations respecting Navigation, 
Manufactures and Agriculture. For years Great 
Britain had shaped all her laws on these subjects, 
to the protection of these interests by duties and 
bounties ; but she has been gradually, as America 
rose into competition with her, changing them 
to re-acquire her ancient position. To this, she 
has sacrificed tho protection of her cominercial 
marine, her navigating power and her agriculture. 
By a course of legislation still in progress, she has 
legislated all those powerful interests into a 
decline; until one of her most accomplished 
writers has lately declared, that for ten years past 
nothing has increased with her but poor-rates, 
crime and emigration. Her experiment is full of 
peril, and the hour of retribution may not be as far 
off, as some of her statesmen seem to suppose ! 
The inventions of Watt, Awkright and Whitney, 
gave to her a command of the manufacturing in,-, 
dustry of the world, but the raw materials were 
not, as formerly, within her control. To attain 
this end, she attempted to counteract the effect 
of our revenue and tariff laws, passed in and prior tov 
1826, by countervailing duties and bounties. It 
was this sudden turn in her tactics, that opened 
the eyes of New England to her real designs, and 
caused, more than aught-else, the change which, 
took place among her politicians, and people, on 
the subject of a protective tariff. 

Without stopping to specify details, you will find that 
Great Uritain has so regulated all this class of legislation 
for a long series of years, as to afford to herself a cheapi 
labor, cheap food, and an abundant supply of the mate- 
rials used in manufactures, at the lowest possible cost. 

The means have been of secondary importance ! To thia 
end all her Acts have tended, and by them she hopes to 
be able to supply herself with those indispensable requi 
sites of prosperity from her own resources. And this is 
the way it is to be completed. Just before she lost her 
North American Colonies, she commenced the establish-^ 
ment of an empire in the East Indies. The Portuguese 
were driven out; the Dutch plundered and brought to 
terms, and the - French vanquished ; and the successive 
wars of devastation and plunder carried on by the infa- 
mous Clive, by Warren Hastings, Wellesly and Cornwal- 
lis, placed her in possession of an immense domain in the 
Indian Seas, reaching over powerful and populous king- 
doms, of vast fertility, range of climate, and production. 

If you desire to hear further of the means she used for 
the acfxuisition of this unparalleled dominion, peruse tho 



( 1« 



Cry, business-liko and cool ferocity of the official des- 
patches, from Clive and WcUcsIy down to Gough and Tor. 
rington— shameless and bloody as the ledger of I'ande- 
inoniuiii; or turn to the glowing and hardly exaggerated 
pages of Burke and Sheridan, and read till your soul sicic. 
ens at the horrid recital of the violation of all laws, hu- 
man and divine,— the riot of fraud, rapine and butchery, 
the saturnalia of demons in human shape, in the accurs- 
ed pursuit of the hellish greed of gain ! And remember 
this is the spot to which British anti-slavery philanthropy 
has directed, and is directing all its thoughts! It is to 
establish here the fields, which are to furnish her me- 
chanic and manufacturing arts with the raw material for 
their various operations, hitherto chiefly supplied from 
slave labor in this and other lands. For this, well might 
she afford to lose her slaves in the West India Colonies, 
and the twenty million pounds sterling their emancipation 
cost her; if, at the same time,she could destroy African sla- 
very, in this country and elsewhere, and substitute for it 
the cheap labor of her East India subjects, amounting to 
over one hundred millions, costing no outlay of capital to 
procure, and but small compensation to pay them ! Such 
is the work in which many of our citizens, seduced by 
false and hollow pretensions of philanthropy, are assist- 
ing, by destroying the labor of the South, ruining the cot- 
ton, sugar and rice-growing regions, and transferring the 
culture of those staples to the plains of British India ! 

Such a work has once before been accomplished by the 
same influence, but on a smaller scale. It is large enough, 
however, to furnish an example and a warning. In the. 
French Assembly, in 1789, an infuriated member rushed 
to the Tribune, and declared that color should make no 
difference between men. British emissaries soon appear- 
ed on the spot, inflaming the already exaggerated minds 
Df the French. Their Colonies were declared free. These 
game foreign sympathizers hastened home, fitted out an 
expedition, loaded with every implement and engine of 
destruction and slaughter, and started for St. Domingo. 
The work of ruin was soon accomplished, and that island — 
hitherto the most productive in the Carribbean Seas, and 
having a monopoly of the indigo culture— became a bar- 
ren waste. In a few years, that trade, with nearly all 
other, was wholly destroyed, and the British secured to 
themselves a like monopoly ol it for their possessions about 
Calcutta, where it had hitherto been grown with indiffer- 
ent success ! 

The same lesson of philanthropy is now forced on the 
attention of our country, on a more dangerous and exten- 
sive scale. And to the disgrace of the age in which we 
live, some of our own countrymen are engaged in teach- 
ing it, by arraying the North against the. South ! Such 
is the object of the principles boldly avowed by Lord Ab- 
erdeen in the Texas negotiation, as the settled policy of 
Great Britain. Where is the American, North or South, 
in view of these things, that will longer lend his aid, di- 
rectly or indirectly, to the production of such results !— 
Nothing but an adherence to our Constitution and Union 
can save us; because it is by our Constitution alone that 
these designs can be prevented, as it is only by its destruc- 
tion, that this war of opinion can ever be brought to bear 
upon our interests. Agitation will not long continue, af- 
ter it is understood to be our final determination, th.it 
none of the powers of government can touch the institu- 
tion of slavery by any hostile action. And this is the po- 
sition in which the Compromise measures of 1850 have 
placed itj and thereby have recommended themselves to 



your acquiescence! By such a course, we prevent the de- 
.signs of foreign and domestic foes alike, and save the 
country from civil war, and the Union from dissolution. 
Nothing from without or within can successfully assail us 
while the Constitution is maintained unimpaired, and the 
Union preserved in all its integrity ! 

Fellow-citizens, wearied as I am, and as I fear you are, 
by this long discussion, I cannot leave you, without saying 
a few words about the modern doctrine of State secession. 
I shall examine merely the question of right, and not of 
power, and consider of it is a remedy for any grievance 
that may arise under onr Constitution, and the action of 
the General Government. You know full well, the differ 
ence between a power and a right. All men have the 
power, but none the right, to do wrong. The power of an 
individual to commit suicide is undoubted ; but not so of 
the right. You need no teacher to tell you, that whateTer 
you have the right to do, no one can have a like right to 
hinder you in doing. The same prop isition is true in re- 
gard to States and nations. In the first place, then, if the 
right of secession is claimed, it must be either as a grant- 
ed, or reserved right. No one pretends there is any 
special grant, nor would you expect to find it there, 
since all the grants run in the other direction, from 
and not to the States or people. The next inquiry 
is, do you find it among the powers " reserved to the 
States respectively or to the people" ? The answer is brief 
and conclusive. A reservation necessarily implies the pre- 
existence of that which is reserved. The States were 
about dividing out the powers of government, a part to 
their separate State Governments, and a part to the Gen- 
eral Government, and they expressly reserved out of the 
existing mass all the residue. If they were not at that 
time in being, they were not and could not be reserved. 
A right to break a contract not yet made, or to de- 
stroy a government not yet formed, did not belong to a 
State before she became a party to such contract or gov- 
ernment. The point is not less clear, by regarding the 
Constitution as the work of the States in their highest 
sovereign capacity, or of the States as separate sovereign- 
ties, each acting for itself. However sovereign the parties 
may have been, they cannot, on that account, reserve to 
themselves rights that were not then in being ! 

There is but one other possible source of the power 
claimed; and that is in the nature of the contractor con- 
stitution itself! All contracts may be limited as to dura- 
tion by express terms : but if nothing is said on the sub- 
ject, then the nature of the contract, its general object 
and scope, will alone determine the point. The American 
compact of the Constitution grew out of the old" Articles 
of confederation," adopted by the revolted Colonies. That 
great instrument of union characterized itself as "Arti- 
cles of Confederation and Perpetual Uijion!" And each 
State pledged itself to abide by the decision of Congress 
in all matters submitted to it by the confederation. The 
Union thus formed was found defective in practice, but it 
was avowedly made to endure forever. To amend its de- 
fects, a Convention met at Philadelphia in 1787, and 
framed the present Constitution — not " Articles of Con- 
federation," but " a Constitution !" It was presented to 
the States and the people of the States ; ratified and 
adopted by them, and became their supreme law. They 
declared that they ordained and established it, amons 



( 17 



other things, "to form a mobe Perfect Un-iov and to se- 
cure the blessings o liberty to themselves, and to their 
posteriiy .'" 

No such right of secession could have been admitted 
even under the old confederation, because inconsistent 
with the chief end and object, the avowed and de- 
clared intent and scope of those articles of perpetual Union. 
Still less can it exist under a Constitution, which formed 
"a more perfect Union " — more perfect in all its parts for 
the people themselves and their posterity forever ! This re- 
sult will not be affected, whether the constitution be con- 
sidered as a compact between sovereigns, or a government 
of the people. A soveteign as such, whether king. State 
or people, has no inherent right to do wrong, no right to 
violate his contracts at pleasure. He can not rightfully 
disregard his own solemn compacts, nor break up his con- 
stitutions of government, nor set aside the great moral 
rules of action laid down for the observance of nations. 
There is another view of the nature of our Con- 
stitution equally decisive of the point. By that 
instrument, the people of the United States, each 
acting within their own limits, and for themselves, 
and in their highest capacity, formed a general 
government. They gave it certain powers over 
several classes of subjects, requiring uuiioruiity 
of rule and action ; they divided it into depart- 
ments, commensurate with those powers, and then 
declared that their constitution, and the laws pas- 
sed in pursuance thereof, and treaties made under 
the authority of the United States, should be 
''the supreme law of the land, anything in the con- 
etitutiori and laws of any State to the contrary not- 
xoithntanding." It was thus made wholly national 
in its operation, and bore directly on the citizens, 
■without regard to State Hues or State authority. It 
established personal relations between the govern- 
ment and the people, all of the people alike, with- 
in the boundaries of the Union. The people 
of each State for themselves, did this. It is their 
government, and each gave up to every other the 
same kind of right that it received from them ; 
that is, to share in making laws that should op- 
erate, not only over themselves, but over the peo- 
ple of all the other Stales. It was this mutuality of 
grant and action, that made the contract of gov- 
ernment irrepealable at the option of one party to 
it. The interest of each under it being exactly 
alike, and the right of judgment in each precisely 
similar, and of equal force, furnished an unan- 
swerable reason why no one singly could break it 
up, or destroy its force over itself or others. The 
principle is universal; that where all stand on 
the same footing, as to their interest in a common 
subject of contract,and all have the same regulating 
power, a majority must govern, unless the contract 
itself points out some other method. This is the 
precise case of onr general government; and to the 
majorities, as arranged and expressed in the dif- 



ferent portions of the Constitution, all the ques- 
tions growing up under it must be submitted for 
settlement. There is no other recourse but one, and 
that is force; and that is revolution — naked, open, 
undisguised revolution ; that rises above all gov- 
ernments, all laws and constitutions, and furnishes 
a law unto itself! 

It may be said these doctrines savor of consoli- 
dation, and the destruction of the States. I think 
not. There is no higher State right, than that which 
each State hasguaranteed to her citizens, the right 
to have a general government, with supreme le- 
gislative, executive and judicial powers, over all 
subjects embraced in the Constitution. Any doc- 
trine of consolidation that goes no further than, 
this, is not only not objectionable, but is conser- 
vative and useful. It is the consolidation of 
which Washington spoke in the letter, accompa- 
nying the Constitution, addressed to the President 
of Congress. It is the " consolidation of the 
Union," which he there declared the Convention 
had kept steadily in view, as the main object of 
their labors. It is the perfection of that " unity 
of government," which he states in his Farewell 
Address, "makes us one people." 

There are some historical facts on this point, 
that should make the secessionist pause, ponder 
and reflect much, before he allows his thoughts to 
ripen into action. 

The very first resolution passed in the Conven- 
tion that framed the constitution, declared that "a 
national government ought to be established, con- 
sisting of a supreme legislative, judicial and exec- 
utive." This designation of powers was substan- 
tially carried out in the Constitution. 

During the debates upon the 3d section of the 
3d article, which defines treason, Luther Martin, 
of Maryland,endeavored to obtain an amendment. 
He was opposed throughout to all those features 
of the new government, which had a national, ra- 
ther than a federative character. The subject has 
never been since presented in a more forcible man- 
ner than by him. He presented the following 
amendment: 

" Provided that no act or acts done by one or 
more of the States against the United States, or 
by a citizen of any one of the United States, shall 
be deemed treason, or punished as such; but ia 
ease of war being levied by one or more States 
against the United States, the conduct of each 
party toward the other, and their adherents re- 
spectively, shall be regulated by the laws of war 
and of nations." 

Here was the doctrine of secession presented in 
its clearest view, and most imposing form. But 
mark well, and remember the result. This propo- 
sition found no favor in the Convention, and was 
at once voted down. Mr. Martin would not yield 

3 



(*«) 



Lis conviutious; he refuse J to Sign Ihe Constitu- 
tion ; he reported his objeccious to the Legislature 
of Maryland, aud resisted its ratification when it 
came before the people. 

The same view was urged on the people of New 
York, by Mr. Yates and Mr. Lansing; and on Vir- 
ginia, by Patrick Henry and George Mason. They 
averred that the rights of the States were en- 
gulpbed by the new government; that its action 
on the citizen was direct, without reference to 
State boundaries; and they feared a consolidated 
despotism would be the inevitable result. None of 
these opponents of the Constitution, with all their 
ability, and ingenuity, ever made the discovery, 
nor thought once of the idea of secession, by 
Tvhich all their objections would at once have been 
obviated ! This is strange, and fatal — entirely 
go — to the notion of its actual existence. 

The ratification of the Constitution was not con- 
ditional, because there was no mode provided for 
re-submitting any conditions, either to a Conven- 
tion, or to the other States. The subject was luuch 
discussed at the time, and many proposals made 
of a conditional ratification. They were, how- 
ever, abandoned; and the suggestion of Mr. Han- 
cock followed, of recommending several amend- 
ments to Congress, to be submitted to the people, 
and to be incorporated into the Constitution, ac- 
cording to its own provisions. This was done, and 
most of the amendments subsequently adopted. 
Mr. Jefferson has borne witness to the fact, that 
by this course, all the essential objects desired by 
the Republican party were obtained, and nothing 
of alteration or addition further was necessary. 

The testimony of the statesmen who formed the 
Constitution, and put the Government in motion 
under it, is worthy of profound consideration ; 
and that testimony is emphatic. 

In 17S6, when the defects in the Articles of Con- 
federation were glaringly manifest. General Wash- 
ington addressed a letter to Mr. Jay, in regard to 
the condition and wants of the country. Listen to 
his language ! 

"I do not conceive we can long exist as a na- 
tion, without having lodged somewhere, a jt>o;iier, 
lehich iDill pervade the whole Union, in as energetic 
a manner, as the authority of the State Governments 
extends over the several States," 

Can anything more clearly foreshadow the com- 
ing Constitution ? 

Again : During the same year, he was applied 
to, to use his influence in putting down the insur- 
rectionary movements in Massachusetts and New 
Hampshire. The insurgents were in open rebel- 
lion, and defying the public authority. Hear the 
Father of his Country, once again uttering his 
words of wisdom ! 

"Influence is not Government. Let us have a 
Government, by which our lives, liberties and pro- 



perty will be secured, or let us know the worst at 
once. If they have real grievances, redress them, 
if possible, or acknowledge your inability to do it 
at the moment. If they have not, employ the force 
of the Government against tlem at once." 

You can fancy you hear him say to his country- 
"^len — If I had the influence to put down a thou- 
sand revolutionary movements, it would only show 
I could create as many more. No, no ! Rebellions 
must be fi'fst put down by the government, or your 
government is not worth having. The govern- 
ment that cannot protect you from the violence of 
the wildest surges of factiofl, is not entitled to 
your confidence ! I will not interfere. 

The opinion of Mr. Jefferson is just as decided. 
In 1787, and alluding to the old confederation, he 
wrote thus : 

"It has been so often said, as to be generally 
believed, that Congress have no power by the con- 
federation to enforce anything ; for example, con- 
tributions of money. It loas not necessary to give 
them that power expressly ; they have it by the law 
of nature. When tico parties make a coni])act, there 
results to each a power of compelling the other to 
execute it." 

The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798 
and 1799, are referred to in vain to support the 
doctrine of secession. It requires a perversion of 
their whole import and language, to deduce the 
modern idea of nullification from them; but se- 
session can not even by such means find any coun- 
tenance in them. They recommended nothing but 
a protest, and united expression of opinion by the 
parlies aggrieved, so as to produce a repeal of the 
obnoxious acts of Congress, or an amendment of 
the Constitution. Every State in the Union re- 
sponded to them, and not one of them even hints 
at any thing being contained in them looking, 
however remotely, towards secession. 

Mr. Madison, who drew the celebrated report 
upon them, and ought to have known their mean- 
ing, as well as any man living, bore the strongest 
testimony to their true character. In 1833 he 
reviewed the whole ground, with all the power and 
vigor of hiSi best days, and proved by a train of argu- 
ment wholly unacswerable, that secession was an 
" extra and ultra-constitutional remedy." Human 
language could not be more exact and emphatic ! 
It seems as if the design had been in this case, as 
in that before cited from Washington, to furnish a 
maxim, so pointed, so brief, and so true, that it 
would be indelibly impressed on the memory of 
his countrymen, and thus to furnish them with an 
ever-present and sufficient protection, hanging 
like an amulet or charm around their necks, against 
the insidious arts and wily devices of " sedition, 
privy conspiracy and rebellion" ! And in the last 
moments of his glorious life, he embodied that idea 
into a parting legacy to the whole American Peo- 



(19 



pie ! Great father of tlio Constitution ! bond down 
from the abodes of bliss, and hear a huuible wor- 
shipper in the Temple reared by your hands, v )-.v 
lidelity to the Union, and swear to observe your last 
request and dying injunction to your countrymen ! 
Mr. Jefferson concurred with the opinion of Mr. 
Madison. Tho evidence of this was furnished du 
ring the sitting of the Virginia Convention in 18- 
30, and given to the world in the papers of the day. 
and nothing more is required to show a perfect 
uniformity of views between these two founders of 
the Republic. Their joint opinion is contained in 
Mr. Madison's letter to Mr. Everett in 1833, 

Do you desire to hear GeneralJackson's views 
regarding nullification and secession ? I refer you 
not to the page of history, but to your own me- 
mory, for his course in re'"ird to South Carolina, 
in 1832 and 1833. He thero assumed that historic 
position, which he will ever 1 11 in the annals of 
our country ! On other occasions he was great, 
often very great, but here he was sublime ! He ap- 
pears to have summoned into action all the won- 
derful powers of his inmost soul, and concentra- 
ting them into one grand effort of indomitable will, 
to have placed his iron heel upon the kindling 
sparks of Rebellion, and crushed them out for- 
ever! This was the crowning act of his glorious 
life! Tliere he stands! Behold him, as he will 
remain, in the minds of men forever ! Proud, 
resolute, defiant, God-like,— the champion of the 
Union under the Constitution, the very Genius of 
America! This is his fame that can never die! 
The glory of that day's doing will be re;-: ■,.],, led 
to the latest ages, preserved by tongue ui elo- 
quence and the voice of song, long after the laurels 
gathered in war shall have perished, and the brass 
and the marble, that chronicle his military deeds 
shall have crumbled into dust! But for the pat- 
riotism, the wisdom, the justness and the firmness 
of his successor in these times of trouble, our 
whole country would raise one supplicating cry— 



"Oh, that the present hour would lend 

Aiiothei-dfijpot ut llie kind ! 

Such chains a« his wero sure to hind !" 

But his spirit is with us; tho crisis is XJast; th<r 
Union is saved ! 

Fellow Citizens : You are engaged in a great 
and good work. The principles of civil liberty 
and regulated government, are entrusted to your 
keeping, and depend on you for protection. You 
will be false to yourselves, if you do not, by a 
noble effort of patriotism, raise yourselves to a full 
level with the dignity and importance of the 
occasion. Y^ou cannot, if you would, act an 
humble or obscure, or unobserved part. You aie 
on an elevated stage, and whatever you do, mu t 
be done in the face of the whole world. Around 
you the expectant Nations stand, waiting the result 

with breathless anxiety ! Above you, the Past 

our own, glorious Past— the heroes and statesmen, 
who achieved our Independence and framed our 
government, are leaning from the realms on high, 
to cheer you in the rugged path of duty so often 
trod by them on earth ! And beyond— far away 
in the distant future— the coming ages, the count- 
less millions of those that will succeed us, stretch 
forth their hands from the bosom of Time, and 
call on us ! They entreat, they beseech, they 
implore us to be true to ourselves, true to the 
great trust committed to our care, true to the 
memory of our sires and the hopes of our posterity ! 
Y'ou must, you will resolve — but lohy speak of 
it as a thing to he done, — you have resolved; you, 
and I, and all of us have resolved; we have come 
up here to day to declare the resolution publicly 
and before all men, that, not relying on our own 
strength, but seeking the aid of that good Provi- 
dence, which has hitherto favored and protected 
us as a nation, so far as it depends on us in our 
day and generation, the Constitution shall be 
preserved inviolate, and the Union be perpetuated 
forever; 

" 'Till, wrapt in fire, the realms of aether glow, 
And Heaven's last thunder shakes the world below " 



W46 




.0^ 






















'•:=^:L'\ r0^.v;^''^°o /•i^i'^'^ .oA-;^,'^o^ 






















\ co\c^.% /-^a^i'A co\c^.'"-o 









^ rtJ— "TCtrt n <*!*. aO •1*°' > \' »i.^% <^ aO »' 



f^*^ 



"^ A** 



<:"^ 



jr. S '% 



